Troubles calling those free conference services
I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems with those "free" service that profit from arbitrage. We get occasional complaints about not being able to dial those, and so far we've explained the scam to them and told them we're not going to fix it. However, it happens often enough that I'd like to know what others are doing about it. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
On 01/27/2011 02:45 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems with those "free" service that profit from arbitrage. We get occasional complaints about not being able to dial those, and so far we've explained the scam to them and told them we're not going to fix it. However, it happens often enough that I'd like to know what others are doing about it.
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc. What others do about it, good or bad, that I've seen: 1) Send that traffic to cherry-picked blended routes from their vendors, at least until they catch on and get pissed off. 2) Charge 60/60 or even higher on all calls, to at least offset some of the damage. You still take a per-minute loss if you're offering rates below what it costs you to call those areas, but if everyone else is paying 1 minute minima too for uncontroversial destinations, you may make it up. 60/60 isn't really that unusual in retail to begin with, but some offer more fractional billing even to retail customers as a selling point. 3) Some smaller IXCs simply refuse to deliver the calls to those areas. If they receive complaints from their subscribers, they quietly allow them for a while, under the guise of having resolved a "technical" or "service" problem. 4) Enforce a call destination area blend of some proportion (kind of like 80/20 RBOC/non-RBOC, but more like, "rural money pit/everything else"), even on retail customers. 5) Simply refuse to complete calls and shrug, as you currently do. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in. I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with. We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included. So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls. BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they used to. Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to build out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services when the populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did not justify it. I'm with them personally. I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls would be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers for these services. -Scott -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in. I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with. We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included. So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls. BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I doubt it's a trunk exhaust issue. I'm sure at least half the time, they just don't want to complete the calls and blame it on trunk exhaust. Not that I blame them, just saying. Unless I'm seriously misinformed, I doubt that Level3 can't push a few hundred to a few thousand calls into any given LATA's access or sector tandem. If anything, it could be that the end office in the particular wire center doesn't have enough trunks going back to the tandem to haul the megachurch CEO-preacher's blather. On 01/27/2011 04:24 PM, Scott Berkman wrote:
I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they used to.
Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to build out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services when the populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did not justify it. I'm with them personally.
I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls would be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers for these services.
-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services
Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in.
I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with.
We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included.
So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls.
BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
Commpartners is a facilities-based CLEC in many states. I believe the specific location that brought this to mind today, in Iowa, is within their facility area. I haven't discussed this issue with them. Based on the feedback here, I'm going to add "we don't process these calls" language to our TOS/AUP, and make it a policy to simply tell customers why. Since we offer an alternative service at no charge to our customers, there is no reason for them to complain. I'm seeing these things in the same way I look at blocking 900 and 0+ dialing. Scott Berkman wrote:
I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they used to.
Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to build out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services when the populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did not justify it. I'm with them personally.
I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls would be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers for these services.
-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services
Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in.
I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with.
We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included.
So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls.
BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
You should be careful about publically admitting to doing this: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2863A1.pdf On 01/27/2011 04:55 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Commpartners is a facilities-based CLEC in many states. I believe the specific location that brought this to mind today, in Iowa, is within their facility area. I haven't discussed this issue with them.
Based on the feedback here, I'm going to add "we don't process these calls" language to our TOS/AUP, and make it a policy to simply tell customers why. Since we offer an alternative service at no charge to our customers, there is no reason for them to complain. I'm seeing these things in the same way I look at blocking 900 and 0+ dialing.
Scott Berkman wrote:
I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they used to.
Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to build out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services when the populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did not justify it. I'm with them personally.
I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls would be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers for these services.
-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services
Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in.
I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with.
We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included.
So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls.
BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I guess the next question is who gets the liability? We aren't blocking them, just saying we won't guarantee them. If Commpartners fails the calls, who is liable? Sounds like the lawyers are the winners, once again. Paul Timmins wrote:
You should be careful about publically admitting to doing this:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2863A1.pdf
On 01/27/2011 04:55 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Commpartners is a facilities-based CLEC in many states. I believe the specific location that brought this to mind today, in Iowa, is within their facility area. I haven't discussed this issue with them.
Based on the feedback here, I'm going to add "we don't process these calls" language to our TOS/AUP, and make it a policy to simply tell customers why. Since we offer an alternative service at no charge to our customers, there is no reason for them to complain. I'm seeing these things in the same way I look at blocking 900 and 0+ dialing.
Scott Berkman wrote:
I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they used to.
Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to build out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services when the populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did not justify it. I'm with them personally.
I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls would be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers for these services.
-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services
Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in.
I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with.
We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included.
So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls.
BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls? Frank -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:24 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services I guess the next question is who gets the liability? We aren't blocking them, just saying we won't guarantee them. If Commpartners fails the calls, who is liable? Sounds like the lawyers are the winners, once again. Paul Timmins wrote:
You should be careful about publically admitting to doing this:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2863A1.pdf
On 01/27/2011 04:55 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
Commpartners is a facilities-based CLEC in many states. I believe the specific location that brought this to mind today, in Iowa, is within their facility area. I haven't discussed this issue with them.
Based on the feedback here, I'm going to add "we don't process these calls" language to our TOS/AUP, and make it a policy to simply tell customers why. Since we offer an alternative service at no charge to our customers, there is no reason for them to complain. I'm seeing these things in the same way I look at blocking 900 and 0+ dialing.
Scott Berkman wrote:
I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they used to.
Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to build out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services when the populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did not justify it. I'm with them personally.
I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls would be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers for these services.
-Scott
-----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services
Alex Balashov wrote:
The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
I was unclear. It's not that we block them, it's that the calls quite often fail to complete through all our carriers. We call that carrier and they give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number. Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have thousands of conference calls coming in.
I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling us, but first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls there to start with.
We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding them that they get a free conference service with us is all they need. We obviously need to do a better job letting them know that it's included.
So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste time fielding support calls.
BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most often is Commpartners, if anyone cares.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Frank Bulk wrote:
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls?
Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications. -- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
Frank, some would argue - although, it seems, contrarily to the direction of prevailing FCC Thought the last few years - that the carriers have to provide the carriage, not VoIP providers who buy from them. :-) At least, that strikes me as a fine justification for, "If none of my LD carriers will complete calls to Fort Gamesmanship, Iowa, that's not my problem." -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ On Jan 28, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls?
Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I wonder if there is an opportunity for carriers to cooperate to eliminate the market for these traffic pumping services. In other words, if carriers were to band together and cooperate to launch a free conferencing service, chat services, etc, we might limit in some way the impact of the business model. -DJ
Frank Bulk wrote:
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls?
Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
It's a free world -- you are free to develop your own conferencing, chat services, etc. Frank -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Dane Jasper Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 2:06 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services I wonder if there is an opportunity for carriers to cooperate to eliminate the market for these traffic pumping services. In other words, if carriers were to band together and cooperate to launch a free conferencing service, chat services, etc, we might limit in some way the impact of the business model. -DJ
Frank Bulk wrote:
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls?
Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
If so, we would have to band together on an ILEC network, as charging the typical CLEC termination rates could get us accused of "traffic pumping" ourselves. Dane Jasper wrote:
I wonder if there is an opportunity for carriers to cooperate to eliminate the market for these traffic pumping services. In other words, if carriers were to band together and cooperate to launch a free conferencing service, chat services, etc, we might limit in some way the impact of the business model.
-DJ
Frank Bulk wrote:
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls?
Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Except your customer may want to complete calls. Three times in the last two months I've had to work with Bell Canada who had to, in turn, work with their LD provider in the U.S., so that people who use Bell Canada for long distance can complete calls in our area. My family lives in Ontario and likes to call me from time to time. Frank -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:27 AM To: Carlos Alvarez Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services Frank, some would argue - although, it seems, contrarily to the direction of prevailing FCC Thought the last few years - that the carriers have to provide the carriage, not VoIP providers who buy from them. :-) At least, that strikes me as a fine justification for, "If none of my LD carriers will complete calls to Fort Gamesmanship, Iowa, that's not my problem." -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ On Jan 28, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com> wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
Since when did our industry stop providing carriage and completing calls?
Since when did this industry aid and abet thieves? It's not very different from a doctor who gives you cholesterol drugs and vitamins instead of telling you to stop eating at McDonald's twice a day. Is it better to help someone keep doing the wrong thing? We have an opportunity to affect positive change in telecommunications.
-- Carlos Alvarez TelEvolve 602-889-3003
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 1/27/2011 5:24 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
I guess the next question is who gets the liability? We aren't blocking them, just saying we won't guarantee them. If Commpartners fails the calls, who is liable? Sounds like the lawyers are the winners, once again.
You say that like you didn't realize this business is regulated and political and as such would require, from time to time, lawyers to help you negotiate less vague agreements; ensure your compliance; and to handle disputes that arise from time to time over billing errors and the vagueness of both agreements and FCC regs.
On 1/27/11 11:45 AM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
I'm sure everyone is aware of the problems with those "free" service that profit from arbitrage. We get occasional complaints about not being able to dial those, and so far we've explained the scam to them and told them we're not going to fix it. However, it happens often enough that I'd like to know what others are doing about it.
I did a writeup on the problem, education seems to work in most cases. http://impulse.net/about-us/latest-news/the-truth-about-free-conference-call... -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
participants (8)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
carlos＠televolve.com -
dane＠corp.sonic.net -
frnkblk＠iname.com -
jay＠west.net -
paul＠timmins.net -
peter＠4isps.com -
scott＠sberkman.net